5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1938–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Dominguez v. Financial Indemnity Co.green1 sentence2024Defendants contend they “did no such thing” and state, without citation to the record, that they “did not file any other motions or discovery.” (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a); Dominguez v. Financial Indemnity Co. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 388, 392, fn. 2 [appellate court may disregard factual assertions that are unsupported by citations to the record].) It is true that the minute order does not state that the defendants requested a continuance of the trial, only that the court believed there was good cause for a continuance due to the death in defense counsel’s family. | 1 | 1 |
Bradley v. Breengreen1 sentence2013(Id. at p. 983; see Wagner v. Wagner, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 256 ; Bradley v. Breen (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 798, 800 [the statute "governs causes 6 In full, section 366.2, subdivision (b) states: "The limitations period provided in this section for commencement of an action shall not be tolled or extended for any reason except as provided in any of the following, where applicable: [¶] (1) Sections 12, 12a, and 12b of this code. [¶] (2) Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code (creditor claims in administration of estates of decedents). [¶] (3) Part 8 (commenc | 1 | 1 |
Wagner v. Wagnergreen1 sentence2013(Id. at p. 983; see Wagner v. Wagner, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 256 ; Bradley v. Breen (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 798, 800 [the statute "governs causes 6 In full, section 366.2, subdivision (b) states: "The limitations period provided in this section for commencement of an action shall not be tolled or extended for any reason except as provided in any of the following, where applicable: [¶] (1) Sections 12, 12a, and 12b of this code. [¶] (2) Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code (creditor claims in administration of estates of decedents). [¶] (3) Part 8 (commenc | 1 | 1 |
Dacey v. Taradaygreen1 sentence2013(Dacey v. Taraday, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 986 [holding section 366.2 did not apply where decedent did not breach the contract (a dissolution agreement involving obligations contingent upon a settlement or victory in certain litigation) before his death, and the breach was committed after the decedent's death by the administrator of the decedent's estate].) But it will bar an action when the breach or misconduct occurs before the decedent's death and the claim is not discovered while the decedent is alive. | 1 | 1 |
Gorman v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1941In Estate of Ross, 199 Cal. 641, 647, 648 [ 250 Pac. 676 ], referring to Estate of Sweetman, 185 Cal. 27 [ 195 Pac. 918 ], the court said: “We are in accord with the rule which seems to have been approved in that ease, that the presumption of revocation does not apply, or is overcome and is rebutted, where it appears that the will was deposited by the deceased with a custodian and that the deceased did not thereafter have it in her possession or have access to it. . . . 1941In Estate of Ross, 199 Cal. 641, 647, 648 [ 250 Pac. 676 ], referring to Estate of Sweetman, 185 Cal. 27 [ 195 Pac. 918 ], the court said: “We are in accord with the rule which seems to have been approved in that ease, that the presumption of revocation does not apply, or is overcome and is rebutted, where it appears that the will was deposited by the deceased with a custodian and that the deceased did not thereafter have it in her possession or have access to it. . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marsh v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
green
1 sentence1980(Id. at pp. 840-841.) *284 Of contrast is Marsh, supra, 257 Cal.App.2d 574 which involved a death claim by dependents of. a worker. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Griffiths v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1941In Estate of Ross, 199 Cal. 641, 647, 648 [ 250 Pac. 676 ], referring to Estate of Sweetman, 185 Cal. 27 [ 195 Pac. 918 ], the court said: “We are in accord with the rule which seems to have been approved in that ease, that the presumption of revocation does not apply, or is overcome and is rebutted, where it appears that the will was deposited by the deceased with a custodian and that the deceased did not thereafter have it in her possession or have access to it. . . . 1941In Estate of Ross, 199 Cal. 641, 647, 648 [ 250 Pac. 676 ], referring to Estate of Sweetman, 185 Cal. 27 [ 195 Pac. 918 ], the court said: “We are in accord with the rule which seems to have been approved in that ease, that the presumption of revocation does not apply, or is overcome and is rebutted, where it appears that the will was deposited by the deceased with a custodian and that the deceased did not thereafter have it in her possession or have access to it. . . . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Canfield v. Great Camp of the Knights of the Maccabees
neutral
2 sentences1938J. 18, we find the following: “A beneficiary cannot seek to recover on a certificate, and at the same time repudiate it by asserting the invalidity of a provision limiting the liability of the society.” The validity of a provision in the by-laws of the association which became a part of the agreement between Naderhoff and the association, limiting the amount to be paid on the certificate to the amount actually collected by an assessment levied for the purpose of raising money to pay a death claim based thereon, is further supported by the following cases: Canfield v. Knights of Maccabees, 87 M 1938J. 18, we find the following: “A beneficiary cannot seek to recover on a certificate, and at the same time repudiate it by asserting the invalidity of a provision limiting the liability of the society.” The validity of a provision in the by-laws of the association which became a part of the agreement between Naderhoff and the association, limiting the amount to be paid on the certificate to the amount actually collected by an assessment levied for the purpose of raising money to pay a death claim based thereon, is further supported by the following cases: Canfield v. Knights of Maccabees, 87 M | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.